The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review paper is to critique the empirical literature pertaining to the communication needs and goals of cancer patients, and to provide direction for research in this area. According to the conceptual framework of Feldman-Stewart et al., patient-physician communication occurs for the fundamental purpose of addressing each participant's goal(s). This review is divided into two categories of goals: (a) optimal medical management of the cancer, and (b) optimal attention to the patient's psychosocial response to cancer. Optimal medical management includes discussions about disease status and the treatment plan, and the effectiveness of these discussions is frequently determined by assessing patient understanding, satisfaction, and well-being. The literature suggests that cancer patients continue to have unmet communication needs, and communication outcomes are enhanced when physicians attend to the emotional needs of patients. Research gaps in communication research are highlighted, including the need for additional study of several external factors affecting the patient and provider.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it